Обсуждение: Within CF app, "Bug Fixes" should be "Bug Fixes/Refactoring"

I think that within the CF app, we should either rename the patch
topic "Bug Fixes" to "Bug Fixes/Refactoring", or introduce a new
"Refactoring" topic. I prefer the first approach.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> I think that within the CF app, we should either rename the patch
> topic "Bug Fixes" to "Bug Fixes/Refactoring", or introduce a new
> "Refactoring" topic. I prefer the first approach.

I would vote for the second approach, with a separate category for refactoring.
-- 
Michael

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>> I think that within the CF app, we should either rename the patch
>> topic "Bug Fixes" to "Bug Fixes/Refactoring", or introduce a new
>> "Refactoring" topic. I prefer the first approach.

> I would vote for the second approach, with a separate category for refactoring.

Ditto.  Bug fixes are not at all like refactoring --- in particular, we'd
usually not consider refactoring as fit material for back-patching.

"Refactoring" seems rather a narrow definition of what might show up
in such a category, btw.  Maybe "Code Beautification" would be a
suitable title?  I'm bikeshedding though.
        regards, tom lane

On 10/29/2015 01:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>>> I think that within the CF app, we should either rename the patch
>>> topic "Bug Fixes" to "Bug Fixes/Refactoring", or introduce a new
>>> "Refactoring" topic. I prefer the first approach.
> 
>> I would vote for the second approach, with a separate category for refactoring.
> 
> Ditto.  Bug fixes are not at all like refactoring --- in particular, we'd
> usually not consider refactoring as fit material for back-patching.
> 
> "Refactoring" seems rather a narrow definition of what might show up
> in such a category, btw.  Maybe "Code Beautification" would be a
> suitable title?  I'm bikeshedding though.

"Miscellaneous"?

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Ditto.  Bug fixes are not at all like refactoring --- in particular, we'd
> usually not consider refactoring as fit material for back-patching.
>
> "Refactoring" seems rather a narrow definition of what might show up
> in such a category, btw.  Maybe "Code Beautification" would be a
> suitable title?  I'm bikeshedding though.

I think that there is value in limiting the number of topics. But I
hardly but much weight on this. Any of the above are fine.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>> "Refactoring" seems rather a narrow definition of what might show up
>> in such a category, btw.  Maybe "Code Beautification" would be a
>> suitable title?  I'm bikeshedding though.
>
> I think that there is value in limiting the number of topics. But I
> hardly but much weight on this. Any of the above are fine.

Can someone follow up and push this to the CF app? "Refactoring" seems
to be the consensus.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>>> "Refactoring" seems rather a narrow definition of what might show up
>>> in such a category, btw.  Maybe "Code Beautification" would be a
>>> suitable title?  I'm bikeshedding though.
>>
>> I think that there is value in limiting the number of topics. But I
>> hardly but much weight on this. Any of the above are fine.
>
> Can someone follow up and push this to the CF app? "Refactoring" seems
> to be the consensus.

I guess I'm wondering whether there's really enough of this to need
its own category.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>>>> "Refactoring" seems rather a narrow definition of what might show up
>>>> in such a category, btw.  Maybe "Code Beautification" would be a
>>>> suitable title?  I'm bikeshedding though.
>>>
>>> I think that there is value in limiting the number of topics. But I
>>> hardly but much weight on this. Any of the above are fine.
>>
>> Can someone follow up and push this to the CF app? "Refactoring" seems
>> to be the consensus.
>
> I guess I'm wondering whether there's really enough of this to need
> its own category.

We have a category "Code comments" as well. Let's give it a shot so I
am adding it. We could always remove it later if necessary.
-- 
Michael

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I guess I'm wondering whether there's really enough of this to need
>> its own category.
>
> We have a category "Code comments" as well. Let's give it a shot so I
> am adding it. We could always remove it later if necessary.

Ugh, OK, whatever.  That sounds like we have too many categories.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 11/6/15 11:34 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I guess I'm wondering whether there's really enough of this to need
>>> its own category.
>>
>> We have a category "Code comments" as well. Let's give it a shot so I
>> am adding it. We could always remove it later if necessary.
> 
> Ugh, OK, whatever.  That sounds like we have too many categories.

Btw., the reason I added the Bug Fixes category a while back was that I
felt that bug fixes have a slightly different process to them:

1. One might feel that bug fixes should be dealt with before new features.

2. There often isn't much "do we want this" discussion needed for bugs,
only verification of the code.

I think that was kind of successful.